SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CITATION: Mayollid. v. Techiey, et al.,
RSC-CV-2467
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
2024-03-22
BETWEEN:
Mayollid
Plaintiff
and
Techiey, Ridgeway Department of State, and State of Ridgeway
Defendants
REASONS FOR DISMISSAL
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE KOALA4IIFE
I. Heading entitled “do I really need to mention this”
[1] No law or constitution of any other sovereign state apply in the State of
Ridgeway. No law or constitution of any other sovereign state reigns supreme over the
laws and Constitution of Ridgeway. This should strike no one as a novel interpretation
of the law. The State of Ridgeway is, after all, a sovereign state, whatsoever its past
allegiances.1
[2] Of course, courts in Ridgeway have relied on decisions of courts in the United
States to spare us of reinventing 300 years of precedent. Equally, courts in Ridgeway
have relied on English common law as to not reinvent the contract. In a strict legal
sense, however, decisions of any other court outside of Ridgeway are persuasive rather
than binding on the courts in Ridgeway for the simple reason that Ridgeway is a
sovereign state, even if it does not have a Congress or a Parliament or a federal structure
of government.
[3] The one narrow exception to this, which is purely an invention of the Supreme
Court of Ridgeway and does not predispose Ridgeway’s allegiance to any other
sovereign state, is as follows: “where a provision from our Constitution has obviously
been derived from a provision of a real-life state constitution, we should adopt the
interpretation of the provision from that state’s highest appellate court”. This exception
has since been appropriately expanded to essentially allow courts in Ridgeway to
accept as guidance real-world precedent when interpreting our laws, Constitution, and
rules of procedure which mirror those in the real world.
[4] Nevertheless, we cannot lose sight of the fundamental principle that the State
of Ridgeway is a sovereign state and hence, its laws and Constitution control except
where a provision of our Constitution is a mirror of a provision in the real world, in
which case real-world precedents interpreting a real-world law or constitution, and by
implication the real-world law or constitution itself, might then apply.
1 The State of Ridgeway seceded from the United States on 15 January 2022.
II. Legal findings
[5] For our purposes, I find that art. 1, s. 7 of the Ridgeway Constitution does not
have a mirror provision in the real world and is not derived from a provision of a real-
world law or constitution.
[6] The Ridgeway Constitution controls with respect to the right to jury trial and
the right to be charged by grand jury indictment, and no law or constitution of any other
sovereign state applicable in respect of these rights.
[7] No legal proceeding lies or may be commenced to challenge the
constitutionality of the Ridgeway Constitution on the basis of the laws or a constitution
of any other sovereign state.
[8] Plaintiff has not pleaded a case or controversy, nor would the facts pleaded in
the complaint, taken to be true, entitle the plaintiff to any remedies.
III. Conclusion
[9] The motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is granted.
[10] I write separately to express my concern with this particularly nonsensical
claim. In all respects, it is an unsavoury pitch to effect legislative change through the
courts. Plaintiff should direct himself to the Senate located right across the hall to
advocate for legislative change.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway on March 22, 2024.
“koala4Iife”
Judge koala4Iife
Counsel for the plaintiff Mayollid: josef13344 and totoro987123឵ , Ridgeway.
Counsel for the defendants Ridgeway Department of State, and State of
Ridgeway: Techiey, Ridgeway.
